It is interesting that as Russia grows more middle class by allowing more freedom to business with less governmental intrusion, America looses middle class percentages as it applies more Central government oversight and control of private businesses. Is there a lesson here that larger and more active central government actually hurts free enterprise especially small and local businesses?

Russia sells arms that people can afford, with parts that pop out and you can replace them with anything handy. This is a big factor in Russian economic stability. It's a double-edged sword.
The figures above are obviously out of whack. Are Ruskies rich enough today that ten years from now The Economist will be looking back and saying, "Ten years ago they were rich. What happened??"
We'll have to dig in our pocket 'til the report comes out. For now it's a hard-line on the unemployment issue that counts most.
Chest shot. Workers, judges, lawyers, police - these are the people that never revolt. Presidents and prime ministers revolt.

Regardless of Putin's policies, all that matters is how he gets into office. If the election is not fair and is stolen then he has no right to be there. If his policies are so good then let the people decide in a fair and open election.

What I always wonder is just how much Putin has ripped off himself directly in the tradition of dictators/quasi-dictators which he basically is at this point. He simply won't be pushed aside willingly.

My bet is that he already has billions stashed in personal accounts scattered across various banks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Channel Islands for starters just in chase he eventually has to bug out. After all, anything less than $1B won't do for a forced retirement outside of Russia.

"...My bet is that he already has billions stashed in personal accounts scattered across various banks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Channel Islands for starters".......
Evidence please? It can't be that hard to find.
Anybody with half a brain can come out with any number of allegations, complete with your odd conclusion.
But can you prove it? No?
Ah well, time to edit your assigned talking points then.

Anders Aslung, who regularly writes in Moscow Times, had this to say about Gazprom:

"Since 2001, Gazprom's management has been dominated by three groups: CEO Alexei Miller's young St. Petersburg economists, a group of St. Petersburg KGB officers — both closely linked to Putin — and a third group of old Gazprom officials. Putin himself has arbitrated between these three factions, preventing any one of them from gaining the upper hand. Using a classic divide-and-rule strategy, Putin thus retains the ultimate responsibility for the company.

"As a result of poor management and corruption, Gazprom's production has been stagnant for the last two decades, and its share of Russia's gas output has fallen to 76 percent. It enjoys a monopoly on gas exports, but its net exports have declined for the last decade. The company's strategy is problematic. Essentially, Gazprom just sits on its giant fields that comprise a quarter of global reserves of traditional gas, and it pipes this gas from western Siberia to Europe. It maintains its old strategy with remarkable conservatism and does not stand up to new opportunities or challenges.

"Meanwhile, the gas industry is going through a revolution with a huge new supply of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and shale gas, but Gazprom barely participates in this game. It gained some LNG production after it muscled in on Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin project, whereas it has largely ignored the shale gas market. Gas prices have fallen sharply in the United States and decoupled from high oil prices, while Gazprom insists on high prices linked to the oil price. It also persists with long-term contracts, trying to avoid spot markets. As a result, Gazprom's export volumes to Europe have fallen and are likely to decline further despite the gas bonanza.

Better like this: Vladimir Putin has singlehandedly grew Russian economy, defeated Chechen rebels and shut up the West, the greatest leader of the century, a living hero, "Chuck Norris of politics" as people call him here on this site

This is a proper description, anyone who is less enthusiastic about Him is a traitor been paid by Japanese intelligence and Hillary Clinton!

The GDP per person chart is naive and misleading. It only serves as an indicator of the development of a middle class if one assumes a somewhat equitable distribution of the national increase. If Hardman Vlad and the rest of his siloviki were to increase their oil-derived income by say, $70 billion each year, and everyone else in the country become slightly poorer, it would still show up as a yearly increase of some $500 per person.

The facts are: Yeltsin's market reforms and rise in oil prices from 30$ to 140$ made people lives a bit better, esp. in Metropolitan arias,

The net contribution of Mr. Pukin to the economy is negative as it become more dependent on oil, state institutions are ruined, business is terrified, professionals are leaving the country, investment climate is just terrible, all thanks to Mr. Pukin

You do realize Russia's GDP per capita is greater than The People's Republic of China? According to the IMF Russia is ranked 59th while China is ranked 90th.

" Mr. Putin's advisers call it “vertical power.”

How deep that vertical power runs is illustrated by Gazprom, the energy giant that has become the world's most politically powerful company and Mr. Putin's state within a state.

From its drab headquarters on the Moscow River, next to the Russian White House, Gazprom controls the world's largest gas fields, heats much of Europe, accounts for up to 8 per cent of the gross domestic product, produces 25 per cent of the government's revenue and employs 300,000 people. It also has sketched out ambitious plans that would see it expand Arctic gas exploration, open liquefied natural-gas ports to fuel the United States, and become China's main source of energy – in short, to ensure Russia is the Saudi Arabia of the 21st century."

-The Globe and Mail

This is what I meant:" "in short, to ensure Russia is the Saudi Arabia of the 21st century" on a per capita basis

Dear John4law, I cannot agree more with your statement. Very precise observation. You should write a deeper article on this in The Economist. Ready to help you with facts, statistics and internal views. High oil price has been the main driver into positive economic effects in Russia. The crisis of 2008-09 has shown it clearly. If you want to model a stress test for Russia: model just an oil price of USD 40-50/bbl. Then Russia would be very different from what it is now - back to 80ies and 90ies.

cant blame the russians for having so much oil, its plain luck that their land has it, others' dont.
if $140 oil is helping them, so be it. wouldnt any other country haing natural resources like better price for their commodity (say australia). sounds like sour grapes to me.

How can you compare these highly developed democracies (with equal or higher living standards to the United States not to mention the absence of slain journalists or polonium dispatched dissidents ) to Russia? You can convince yourself but that is as far as your arguments are taking you. You are making my points.

There are some interesting paradoxes here. In a system based on crony capitalism, those most opposed to Mr. Putin earn more than 10 times the minimum income level. So says a survey in last week's "Gorod" (vol. 6 (159), p. 8).

You mean they still have the post-war soup kitchens in Moscow ?
And what do they use for cooking in places like Perm, Orenburg, Novosibirsk and others ? :)
And I thought Moscow was mainly for the rich ! :)